Well, first of all, all of the beings who have been truly confirmed (i.e. they're dead, and we've seen their role message) actually fit with their mythology. To have Gabriel (or Michael, for that matter) suddenly be in league with the rebelling monsters would be a huge sidestep of that.
Second, if I'm actually with the rebelling monsters, then Vivet would've picked up on it and outed me, just as she did Aerdureth (who, by the way, was in no way targetted as far as I can remember when she outed him, unlike you and Falmiis). Or are you saying Vivet is also scum? If so, then Ellowyn must've lied (which, to be fair, is a possibility, as his only goal was to keep living).
In essence, it seems to me that you suspect me simply because I suspect you.
Well, first of all, all of the beings who have been truly confirmed (i.e. they're dead, and we've seen their role message) actually fit with their mythology. To have Gabriel (or Michael, for that matter) suddenly be in league with the rebelling monsters would be a huge sidestep of that.
Second, if I'm actually with the rebelling monsters, then Vivet would've picked up on it and outed me, just as she did Aerdureth (who, by the way, was in no way targetted as far as I can remember when she outed him, unlike you and Falmiis). Or are you saying Vivet is also scum? If so, then Ellowyn must've lied (which, to be fair, is a possibility, as his only goal was to keep living).
In essence, it seems to me that you suspect me simply because I suspect you.
We also know investigations are not foolproof as we've seen in role reveals. We have survivors that investigate as monsters and gods. We know this already. You're creating a false dichotomy, either Vivet has confirmed you or you are scum. Vivet could simply be wrong. Again, that is a defense not grounded in the evidence.
As for why you think I suspect you, that's an appeal to emotion. I am not accusing you out of spite, I am accusing you because of 1) your inability to reconcile the evidence available with your accusation of me (which you still have not done) and 2) your poor defense of yourself thus far. I've been accused by multiple people, including Ieptix, and for a lot longer than you've been on my case. So now you're continuing to mischaracterize me, the otherwise easy target. It's just very scummy.
No Ssaliss, I'm not going to investigate you again (yes, again).
What I didn't mention after I investigated Ellowyn was that, because my truthseeking was inconclusive, the power wasn't depleted. When that was revealed, I investigated the statement you made Day 2 that you were not a rebelling monster and you must see all rebelling monsters dead to win. The first part (not a monster) came back as 'entirely true', while the second part (see the rebelling monsters dead) came back as 'mostly true'. Since I'm relatively comfortable that those responses mark you as town, me investigating you again is a waste.
This was the relevant post from Krackenor which coincides with what I know, in case ya'll missed it.
So what evidence am I not reconciling with you being scum? The message? You do realise that the part about Marcella is rather garbled, and that the proposed message don't add up with the periods in that section. I don't really have an alternate interpretation, but I don't really buy it as exonorating evidence for you either. Also, following your own logic, it's even possible that the entire message is faked. It's also possible that the second message is faked. It's even possible (although in my eyes unlikely) that the two messages were taken from two different groups (perhaps one is a mason group, and the other is the monsters). It wouldn't really alter my suspicion of you being scum though; all things taken together (you being Medusa, no one vouching for you, your general passivity until accused), I still believe that you are the most likely scum. Is it possible that you're not? Of course it is. I'll never say anything else. No one will ever know for sure until we get your role posted by Kiradawea.
It's also rather amusing that so far, I've been asked to provide all the evidence. I've been asked to provide all the evidence against you and discount whatever might have been posted in your favour, as well as having to provide the evidence for me being town. You haven't really provided anything other than "Well, it's possible that an archangel is scum, just look at Lucifer". I'm not Lucifer, so that argument doesn't really hold any ground, since it would essentially go against every piece of mythology around Gabriel.
Again, gross mischaracterization. I'm noticing a theme.
You are not following my logic. My logic is that we have explicit evidence indicating investigations can be fooled, and we have specific evidence that roles are not necessarily aligned as we may think or how they are revealed via investigation. It is grounded in the roles themselves. Nothing in my logic implies anything about the messages, as we have no role evidence that shows messages may be spawned out of nothing. You cannot lift a conclusion reached with evidence present and apply it where such evidence is not present.
You repeatedly requested a name from me and I provided two, one of them was you. Your only single defense was (paraphrased) "But I'm an angel." You offered nothing further.
In direct response to your defense, I then explained two different reasons why that defense is not self sufficient. One you ignored completely, the other one you decided to quote was an example of Lucifer. Your response is now "well I'm not Lucifer," which is kind of missing the point. It wasn't an accusation that you're Lucifer, it was disputing your implication that because you're an angel, you can't be on the side of Monsters and beyond reproach.
I asked you to reconcile the message that named me, your first and only response has been a variation of "Maybe it was made up." Which basically amounts to you being unable to reconcile that message with your narrative, and simply avoiding it. If you don't believe there are two different groups, why would the message talk about me as if I am not involved in the conversation? Those two conclusions can't coexist. If you believe in one group, then I would have been involved in the conversation.
I posted that I revealed myself early, where you all but implied that was not the case. Yet you, in fact, quoted me revealing myself without prompting.
It is amusing, certainly, though not because you are being asked to support your accusations in the full context of evidence. Rather it is amusing that you are misrepresenting what I have said as an overly simplified example of Lucifer.
Am I certain of your guilt? No. The evidence I have outlined, with an emphasis on your implication that you are beyond reproach simply by virtue of your role despite direct evidence demonstrating that may not be the case, and your repeated characterization of the easiest target on the town's side is increasingly suspicious.
Honestly, at this point I don't really believe you don't recognize (perhaps it's deliberate) you are mischaracterizing my statements in this conversation. I think you do 100%. Which makes me wonder why.
However, I have not voted, because at the very least no one seems interested in pursuing you and there are other theories floating around.
Well, let's go through the roles we do know for certain.
Shaddus - Raphael. An Angel, and also on the side of the Gods. Seems fairly sensible. Luce - White fox of Inari. The stories tell that there are no foxes in Sado because Danzaburou drove them out, so this rivalry isn't exactly odd. Synkarin - Buddha. That win condition definitely made sense. Tekora - Ereshkigal. God of the Dead. He was (is) on the side of the Gods. Falmiis - Dullahan. Yeah, not much else to say there. Aerdureth - Morgan le Fay. Again, not much else to add. Ellowyn - Chang'e. The backstory, again, makes sense.
Where exactly is the specific evidence that the roles are not necessarily aligned as we may think? What exactly points to a massive mythological inconsistency? You simply can't say that "Well, Lucifer was an archangel, so you might be a rebelling monster too". We all know that Lucifer fell; that's in the mythologies. If there was an archangel called Lucifer in the game, I'd be all for voting for him, but right now it seems like mythology matches fairly well.
As for the message, it's pretty obvious that I didn't just toss out several variations of "it's made up". Is it a possibility? Yes. It's also a possibility that it was misinterpreted, and it's also a possibility that it's referencing something said earlier. Also, no matter if I believe that there are two groups or not, it's still a possibility; it would be pretty foolish of me to just assume that what I believe is what actually is. There is a possibility that there are two groups, so that's why I added that option to the message as well. I'll never claim to have all the answers, simply because it's impossible for anyone to know every detail.
As for your early reveal, I already explained that it means absolutely nothing. Essentially, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". The objective of the scum is to look as towny as possible; as such, anything that would make someone more town is just as likely to come from a scum as from a town. If an early reveal would benefit a towny, then it would also benefit a scum for the exact same reasons; both town and scum want to survive for as long as possible, and they would thust be expected to act in the exact same manner. You simply cannot claim that an early reveal is good for town and bad for scum. You cannot say it increases your odds of being investigated, since (as far as I can tell) you haven't been investigated since your reveal. How, precisely, is that bad for scum?
Divine: You're not an actual god yourself, but due to your connection to the divine, investigations reveal you as a God.
I really don't know how to make it anymore clear to you. Perceived alignments as revealed by investigations are fundamentally undermined by the very first death in this game. Full stop.
You avoided reconciling your own statements. Again. You're now arguing both sides of the fence. I'm guilty because there could be multiple groups, but you don't actually believe there are multiple groups. That is backwards reasoning, starting with the end result (I am scum) and working backwards.
I can absolutely say an early reveal is bad for scum. Unnecessary attention is always bad for scum. Especially if part of your role is that you are literally a monster. You keep harping on this nonsense that I've been claiming town because I killed a member of the monsters. I never said that, I never asserted that. My argument has been entirely based around my reveal and the necessity of it. It's entirely irrelevant what you believe my power was attempting to hide, as I have never actually attempted to hide behind that action. I used a power, revealed my role, confirmed my role with my power, and explained why I thought it necessary to do so when I did. At no point did I attempt to leverage that my target was mafia.
The entire lynchpin of your argument, that I killed scum to appear more like the town, has never been suggested by me. It's entirely made up.
I simply can argue an early reveal is good for town and bad for scum, when your role is that you are a monster. As I explained: If I am town-not revealing and being investigated makes me look suspicious because I will reveal as a monster and I never said anything. If I am scum-all this does it bring attention to myself and open myself up for increased scrutiny. Numbers favor hiding in the masses early game as scum, this is the factual reality of the game. Revealing as a monster and killing someone de facto increases the odds of being investigated.
It's not rocket science, I've explained this over and over.
Anyways, since Ssaliss and I aren't going to see eye to eye on this, and I don't see anyone going to Ssaliss with me since several people still suspect me, I don't know how else to proceed.
It fits the game that all characters return as either monster or god in the context of the game, even if that doesn't match up perfectly with RL mythology. However, we have 0 cases of the characters' powers, motivations, etc being inconsistent with mythology. Those are two orthogonal things that Celina is conflating. Though it'd be awfully convenient for Celina's claim to convince people that there are discrepancies between RL mythology and in game characters. IJS.
To drive the point home, it makes 100000x more sense for Medusa to want revenge on the gods than forgiveness. She was cursed by Athena for getting raped in Her temple by Poseidon. Medusa wanting forgiveness or whatever doesn't make a lock of sense.
I'm marginally offended people think I'm so bad at this game that I would out myself as a monster on the side of monsters, with my only defense being a convenient "but you just have to trust me."
Oh well.
As a note, I defended Synkarin, and you guys lynched him anyways. The evidence isn't just speculation and circumstantial.
I never said anything about forgiveness. I said the gods promised to lift my curse, which makes sense since Medusa's defining characteristic was vanity.
It should be noted that the idea of Medusa seeking revenge on Athena and Poseidon is a manufactured one if you want to discuss motivations being consistent with RL mythology.
I can't find any indication that Medusa sought or intended to seek vengeance on Athena anywhere. Just one of the reasons I think that line of reasoning is silly. In the context of the entire game, the idea that RL mythology is motivating each side is kind of absurd.
I'm on my phone and couldn't go back to check exactly what you'd said, my bad.
Even still, I find it more likely that Medusa would want revenge instead of the gods being all jk help us and we're all cool, ignore that dude we're sending to kill you, dawg.
I've given it some thought, and have come up with the following:
Things I know
Ssaliss is not a rebelling monster, and wins when the monsters die and are otherwise put down
Othero is Cerberus, is aligned with neither the gods nor the monsters, and wins when he is the last lynch 3 times
Vivet is acting really strangely
Yavina is a God, according to my mystical angelic visitor (probably Idunn)
Things I suspect strongly
Silvanus is who he says he is and just wants to live to the end of the game
Celina is Medusa
Something bad is going to happen to Vivet after day 5 (maybe explaining oddness?)
Matters which I am in the dark
ANYTHING about Ieptix
ANYTHING about Dylara except that she wantonly murdered somebody night 1
Celina's motivations
Vivet (who's advice has been pretty accurate until now) vouches for Ieptix. I want to know more, but I'll settle with it for now.
While I'm still suspicious of Celina with relation to the message, her killing of Falmiis endears her to me. Further, the claim that there are two mafia groups came from Tekora (who also wrongfully accused me and Ssaliss, two people I know are town, of being mafia).
In the meantime, Dylara has spoken very little, revealed very little, and claims to have committed a blatantly violent act with no apparent thought behind it during night 1. It could be possible that the garbled message was referring to her wasteful use of a one time power, I honestly don't know. However, unless somebody convinces me otherwise, I'm going to go with the following:
See, I'm pretty sure Dylara is an Archangel/Michael exactly as she says. The circumstantial evidence I have for that is pretty strong. And because I've been willing to accept that both Silvanus and Luce are non-mafia, I'm willing to believe that Dylara's win conditions are exactly as she says. But, if I was forced to pick between determining if Ssaliss or Dylara were anti-town, it would have to be Dylara, simply because I've seen Ssaliss' role info for myself, and have Krackenor's results to reinforce it.
Iunno, I don't think lynching Celina is a great idea either. I'll have to think about it more.
Investigate me, or whatever. It's fine. I do apologize for not being more chatty, school has taken me for a bit of a run lately and not left me with a lot of brain power for the back and forth that often goes on in Mafia games. Yes, I was rash in going after Luce first night, I haven't played mafia in a few years and forgot it is typically better for someone of my powers wait for more information. Since it backfired on me so badly, I am left with no way to win unless the town wins.
I am town, I can't prove it any other way that repeatedly saying who I am and that I am town. Every time I have asked, I have given as much information as was appropriate at the time, at this point I have given everything I have. So lynch me, or not, it's up to you. If you do lynch me, you will see I'm town and then I suggest you go after Krackenor for repeatedly trying to deflect off existing targets and on to me.
I am Michael. I win when the monster rebellion is crushed. Die monsters, die!
Avurekhos says, "Dylara's a PvP menace in my eyes, totes rekting face."
The eye of Dylara materialises in your hands and flings itself around your neck, tightening incomprehensibly until it is irremovable. Perfectly clean, this eyeball has been wrenched from the socket of Dylara. It has been animated by some unusual force, constantly looking around itself as if in shock or fear. It is bathed in a light covering of white flames that roll endlessly over its surface. A single chain of empyreal metal pierces either side of the eye, allowing it to be worn around the neck.
Apparently phone posting doesn't work. I was going to say, if a decision doesn't come soon I'm willing to go with Vivet's plan. Still seems better then allowing chance to pick who's lynched.
Comments
Second, if I'm actually with the rebelling monsters, then Vivet would've picked up on it and outed me, just as she did Aerdureth (who, by the way, was in no way targetted as far as I can remember when she outed him, unlike you and Falmiis). Or are you saying Vivet is also scum? If so, then Ellowyn must've lied (which, to be fair, is a possibility, as his only goal was to keep living).
In essence, it seems to me that you suspect me simply because I suspect you.
It's also rather amusing that so far, I've been asked to provide all the evidence. I've been asked to provide all the evidence against you and discount whatever might have been posted in your favour, as well as having to provide the evidence for me being town. You haven't really provided anything other than "Well, it's possible that an archangel is scum, just look at Lucifer". I'm not Lucifer, so that argument doesn't really hold any ground, since it would essentially go against every piece of mythology around Gabriel.
Shaddus - Raphael. An Angel, and also on the side of the Gods. Seems fairly sensible.
Luce - White fox of Inari. The stories tell that there are no foxes in Sado because Danzaburou drove them out, so this rivalry isn't exactly odd.
Synkarin - Buddha. That win condition definitely made sense.
Tekora - Ereshkigal. God of the Dead. He was (is) on the side of the Gods.
Falmiis - Dullahan. Yeah, not much else to say there.
Aerdureth - Morgan le Fay. Again, not much else to add.
Ellowyn - Chang'e. The backstory, again, makes sense.
Where exactly is the specific evidence that the roles are not necessarily aligned as we may think? What exactly points to a massive mythological inconsistency? You simply can't say that "Well, Lucifer was an archangel, so you might be a rebelling monster too". We all know that Lucifer fell; that's in the mythologies. If there was an archangel called Lucifer in the game, I'd be all for voting for him, but right now it seems like mythology matches fairly well.
As for the message, it's pretty obvious that I didn't just toss out several variations of "it's made up". Is it a possibility? Yes. It's also a possibility that it was misinterpreted, and it's also a possibility that it's referencing something said earlier. Also, no matter if I believe that there are two groups or not, it's still a possibility; it would be pretty foolish of me to just assume that what I believe is what actually is. There is a possibility that there are two groups, so that's why I added that option to the message as well. I'll never claim to have all the answers, simply because it's impossible for anyone to know every detail.
As for your early reveal, I already explained that it means absolutely nothing. Essentially, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander". The objective of the scum is to look as towny as possible; as such, anything that would make someone more town is just as likely to come from a scum as from a town. If an early reveal would benefit a towny, then it would also benefit a scum for the exact same reasons; both town and scum want to survive for as long as possible, and they would thust be expected to act in the exact same manner. You simply cannot claim that an early reveal is good for town and bad for scum. You cannot say it increases your odds of being investigated, since (as far as I can tell) you haven't been investigated since your reveal. How, precisely, is that bad for scum?
The eye of Dylara materialises in your hands and flings itself around your neck, tightening incomprehensibly until it is irremovable.
Perfectly clean, this eyeball has been wrenched from the socket of Dylara. It has been animated by some unusual force, constantly looking around itself as if in shock or fear. It is bathed in a light covering of white flames that roll endlessly over its surface. A single chain of empyreal metal pierces either side of the eye, allowing it to be worn around the neck.